Download - From Sabbath To Sunday: How Did It Come About?

Endtime Issues No. 64 of 18

From Sabbath To Sunday: How Did It Come About?Endtime Issues No. 64

1 March 2001Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.

Retired Professor of Theology, Andrews University

Dear Members of the Endtime Issues Newsletter:

In the last newsletter No. 63, I promised to post some of the lectures that I deliver inconjunction with my SABBATH ENRICHMENT SEMINAR. I began with the lecture on“The Sabbath Under Crossfire: A Look at Recent Developments.” The many positivecomments I received have been most encouraging. Many of you have expressed yourappreciation for the report about the recent attacks against the Sabbath, as well as therediscovery of the Sabbath by various religious organizations and church leaders ofdifferent faiths. Several of you have asked me to keep you posted on futureSabbath/Sunday developments. This I will try to do by posting update reports from timeto time.

This newsletter continues the Sabbath Seminar series, by offering the text of mylecture on how the change came about from Sabbath to Sunday in early Christianity. Ireworked considerably this presentation in preparation for the video recording that wasdone at the Sacramento Central SDA Church on February 2, 3 and 4, 2001. In this lectureI attempt to compress into one hour lecture, the most significant aspects of this researchon the change of the Sabbath that engaged me over a period of five years at thePontifical Gregorian University, in Rome, Italy.

Often people ask me for a simple, concise summary of the findings of myinvestigation on how the Sabbath was changed to Sunday in the early church. Theyrightly complain that my dissertation is too demanding in term of time and concentration.They prefer a simpler explanation which they can share more readily with interestedpeople. To meet this need, I have attempted in this lecture to present the highlights of myresearch, in a simple and well-structured manner. For the sake of brevity, I omitted thefootnote references. Interested readers will find all the documentation in From Sabbath toSunday. Feel free to print, use, and distribute the text of this newsletter in any formatyou deem necessary for your outreach endeavors.

The video recording of this lecture that was done at the Sacramento Central SDAChurch, offers numerous close up pictures of significant documents. I am most grateful forthe professional recording that was done by the Amazing Facts crew. You will find thevideo recording of the five Sabbath lectures, very informative and most helpful to sharethe Sabbath message with your friends.

In the last newsletter I offered this new recording in video and audio cassettes,together with my four volumes on the Sabbath, at a very special price. Many of youhave taken advantage of the special offer. For the sake of those who have justsubscribed to this newsletter, the same special offer will be posted again at the end ofthis newsletter.


AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

The lecture you are about to read contains information that may differ from yourunderstanding of the time and causes of the change from Sabbath to Sunday in earlyChristianity. In fact, a question that is invariably asked each time I present this lecture,goes something like this: “How do you reconcile your conclusion that Sundayobservance began in the early part of the second century when the Roman EmperorHadrian promulgated a most repressing anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation in A. D.135, with the popular Adventist view that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday in thefourth century by the Emperor Constantine?”

My answer to this question is simple. Constantine did not introduce Sundayobservance. He simply made the Day of the Sun a civil holiday by promulgating thefamous Sunday Law in A. D. 321. The reason Constantine made Sunday a civil holidayis simply because by that time the Day of the Sun had become popular both among thepagans and the Christians. This is indicated by the very wording of the legislation: “Onthe venerable Day of the Sun . . .” It is evident that at that time the Day of the Sun wasalready “venerable,” that is, popular and respected.

The process which led to the adoption of the Day of the Sun as a civil holiday forthe whole Roman Empire began in the in the early part of the second century, when theDay of the Sun was advanced from second day of the week to the position of first andmost important day of the week. This process is discussed in chapter 8 of From Sabbathto Sunday, and briefly alluded to at the end of this lecture. There are compellingindications that when the Romans advanced the Day of the Sun to the first and mostimportant day of the week, Gentile Christians, who came from a pagan background, wereinfluenced to adopt the selfsame Day of the Sun, in order to show separation from theJews and identification with the Romans. To put it differently, they chose to be politicallycorrect by adopting the Day of the Sun, rather than to be biblically correct by observingthe seventh-day Sabbath.

There are irrefutable historical testimonies attesting Sunday observance in thesecond and third centuries, that is, long before the time of Constantine. To ignore thesetestimonies in order to perpetrate the mistaken notion that all Christians observed theSabbath during the first three centuries, means to expose our Adventist Church to thecharge of plain ignorance. We have nothing to gain and much to loose by perpetrating amistaken position.

The fact that Sunday observance began earlier than anticipated, in no wayweakens the validity and continuity of the Sabbath. It only goes to show that the Devilunderstands the importance of Sabbath observance in the religious life of God’s people.After all Sabbathkeeping is equated in Scripture with faithfulness to God, and Sabbathprofanation with apostasy. Through the prophet Ezekiel God laments: “the house ofIsrael rebelled against me in the wilderness . . my Sabbath they greatly profaned” (Ezek20:13). The reason for this equation is not difficult to see. A person who ignores the Lordon His Holy Day, ultimately ignores the Lord every day.

In view of the vital importance the Sabbath plays in the religious experience ofGod’s people, it would have been most surprising if the Evil One had not tampered withthe Sabbath commandment during the first three centuries. By leading many Christians toreject the Sabbath soon after the beginning of Christianity, the Devil succeeded inpromoting false types of worship. We must never forget that the Great Controversylargely centers on worship: that is, true worship versus false worship. And the Sabbathis essential to worship, because it invites us to worship God by consecrating our timeand life to Him in a special way every seventh day.


UPCOMING WEEKEND SEMINARS

As a service to our subscribers, I am listing the date and the location of theseminars for the months of March, and April 2001. Feel free to contact me at (616) 471-2915 for a special seminar in your area during the latter part of this year. I still have fewopen weekends.

MARCH 2-3: WALLA WALLA CITY SDA CHURCHLocation: 2133 Howard Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362For information call Pastor Rick Bowes at (509) 525-9540 or (509) 525-5700.

MARCH 9-10: APOPKA SDA CHURCH (ORLANDO)Location: 305 South Highland Avenue, Apopka, FL 32704For information call Pastor John Appell at (407) 899-2812 or (407) 880-1726

MARCH 16-17: WINTER SPRINGS SDA CHURCH (ORLANDO)Location: 50 S. Moss Road, Winter Springs, FL 32708For information call Pastor Gustav Scheuneman at (407) 327-1190 or (407) 862-5463.

MARCH 23-24: SPOKANE CENTRAL SDA CHURCHLocation: 828 W Spofford Avenue, Spokane, WA 99205For information call Pastor Jeff Kinne at (509) 328-5900 or (509) 443-9961.

APRIL 6-7: RED DEER SDA CHURCH, ALBERTA, CANADALocation: Highway 2 South to McKenzie Road, Red DeerFor information call Pastor Ian Hartley (403) 347-9201 or (403) 886-4123

APRIL 13-15: BREMEN, GERMANYLocation: GANDERKESEE near Bremen, FreizeitheimHOEHENBOEKEN, Ammerweg 15For information call 04223-9310222. People can book there for accommodation bytel.038784-60428 or fax 038784-90067 with church elder Georg Bunkus, president of ourinstitution.

APRIL 20-21: SANDPOINT SDA CHURCHLocation: 2255 Pine Street, Sandpoint, Idaho 83864For information call Pastor Ron Reed at (208) 265-0519 or (208) 263-3648

APRIL 27-28: HERMISTON SDA CHURCHLocation: 855 W. Highland, Hermiston, OR 97838For information call Pastor Kevin Wilfley at (541) 567-7989 or (541) 567-8241

A PLEA FOR PATIENCE ON ADDRESS CHANGES

If you have requested to have your address changed or deleted, please bepatient with me. It has become time-consuming for me to have to change or deletemanually all the addresses that come in every day. I am in the process of purchasingsoftware that will help me manage my mailing list. If you know of a good software tomanage a mailing list that is compatible with my Mac, please advise me. I need guidancein this matter. Thank you for any information.


FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY: HOW DID IT COME ABOUT?Dr. Samuele BacchiocchiRetired Prof. of Theology, Andrews University

Few subjects have been so hotly debated in Christian history as that of thechange in the day of rest and worship from Sabbath to Sunday in early Christianity.Over 3000 dissertations and treatises have been published on this subject since the timeof Reformation. A major reason for this unceasing interest in the historical origin of Sundayhas been the need to define the nature of Sundaykeeping in its relationship to theSabbath. The debate often centers around this fundamental question: Did Sundayoriginate as the continuation of the Sabbath and consequently should be observed as aDAY of rest and worship like the Sabbath? Or, did Sunday begin as a brand newChristian institution, radically different from the Sabbath, and consequently should beobserved more as an HOUR of weekly worship?

Christians have been equally divided in their answer to these questions. On theone hand there are those churches who follow the Calvinistic tradition that views Sundayas the Christian Sabbath, and thus to be observed as a HOLY DAY of rest and worshipunto the Lord. On the other hand, there are those church that follow the Lutheran andCatholic traditions that sees Sunday as different from the Sabbath, and thus to beobserved primarily as the weekly HOUR of worship.

The current crisis of Sunday observance has sparked a renewed interest for thequestion of the origin Sunday and its relationship to the Sabbath. Catholic andProtestant church leaders are deeply concerned over the alarming decline in churchattendance. In Italy, where I come from, it is estimated that only 5% of Catholics attendMass regularly on Sunday. About 95% of Catholics go to church three times in their lives:when they are hatched, matched, and dispatched. The situation is essentially the same inmost Western countries where church attendance runs below the 10% of the Christianpopulation. The strikingly low church attendance is seen by church leaders as a threat tothe survivals not only of their churches and of Christianity itself. After all the essence ofChristianity is a relationship with God and if Christians ignore the Lord on the day whichthey view as the Lord's Day, chances are that they will ignore the Lord every day of theweek.

Keenly aware of the implications of the crisis of Sunday observance for the futureof the Christian churches, numerous church leaders and scholars are re-examining thehistory and theology of Sunday in an effort to promote more effectively its observance.As already stated, a major question addressed in recent dissertations, books, and articles,is the relationship between the Sabbath and Sunday.

Two Views Regarding the Origin of Sunday

Briefly stated, there are two major views today regarding the historical origin ofSunday and its relationship to the biblical Sabbath. The older and traditional view, whichcan be traced back to early Christianity, maintains that there is a radical discontinuitybetween the Sabbath and Sunday, and consequently Sunday is not the Sabbath. Thetwo days differ in origin, meaning, and experience. The more recent view, which isarticulated by Pope John Paul II himself in his Pastoral Letter Dies Domini, maintains thatSunday began as the embodiment and “full expression” of the Sabbath, andconsequently it is to be observed as a biblical imperative, rooted in the Sabbathcommandment itself.

According to the traditional view, which has been held by the Catholic Church andaccepted by those Protestant denominations which follow the Lutheran tradition, theSabbath was a temporary Mosaic institution given to the Jews, abrogated by Christ, andconsequently no longer binding today. Christians adopted Sunday observance, not asthe continuation of the biblical Sabbath, but as a new institution established by thechurch to celebrate Christ's resurrection by means of the Lord's Supper celebration.


This traditional position has been held by the Catholic Church which has claimedthe responsibility for changing the Sabbath to Sunday. For example, Thomas Aquinas(A. D. 1225-1274) who is regarded as the greatest Catholic theologian who ever lived,explicitly states: “The observance of the Lord‘s Day took the place of the observance ofthe Sabbath not by virtue of the [Biblical] precept but by the institution of the church.” This view has been reiterated through the centuries in standard Catholic catechismswhere a statement like this is usually found: “We observe Sunday rather than Saturdaybecause the Catholic Church by virtue of her authority has transferred the solemnity ofthe Sabbath to Sunday.”

Recently, however, there have been both Catholic and Protestant scholars whohave argued for an apostolic origin of Sunday observance. According to these scholars,the Apostles themselves chose the first day of the week as the new Christian Sabbath atthe very beginning of Christianity in order to commemorate Christ’s resurrection.

This view is defended at great length by Pope John Paul II in his Pastoral Letter,Dies Domini (The Lord's Day), which was promulgated on May 31, 1998. In this lengthydocument (over 40 pages) the Pope makes a passionate plea for a revival of Sundayobservance by appealing to the moral imperative of the Sabbath commandment. For thePope Sunday is to be observed, not merely as an institution established by the CatholicChurch, but as a moral imperative of the Decalogue. The reason is that Sunday allegedlyoriginated as the embodiment and “full expression” of the Sabbath and consequentlyshould be observed as the biblical Sabbath.

John Paul departs from the traditional Catholic position presumably because hewishes to challenge Christians to respect Sunday, not merely as an institution of theCatholic Church, but as a divine command. Furthermore, by rooting Sundaykeeping in theSabbath commandment, the Pope offers the strongest moral reasons for urging Christians“to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy.”

The attempts made by the Pope and other Church leaders to ground Sundayobservance on the Sabbath commandment, raises this important question: “If Christiansare expected to observe Sunday as the Biblical Sabbath, why should not they observethe Sabbath in the first place?” What was wrong with the biblical Sabbath that needed tobe changed to Sunday? To apply the Sabbath Commandment to the observance of thefirst day of the week, Sunday, can be confusing to say the least, because the FourthCommandment enjoins the observance of the seventh day, not of the first day. Thisconfusion may explain why many Christians do not take the observance of Sundayseriously.

The Conclusions of My Research. To find an answer to the questions of the time,place, causes, and consequences of the change from Sabbath to Sunday in earlyChristianity, I spent five years at the Pontitical University in Rome, examining for mydoctoral dissertation the earliest Christian documents. The results of my investigationhave been published in my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday: A HistoricalInvestigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. The dissertationwas published in 1997 by the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy, with theofficial Catholic imprimatur—approval. Pope Paul VI awarded me a gold medal for earningthe summa cum laude distinction in this research and school work. In this lecture I willattempt to share some of the highlights of this research.

For the sake of clarity, let me state at the outset the conclusion of my investigation.Simply stated, my analysis of the biblical and historical texts indicate that the change fromSabbath to Sunday did not come about at the beginning of Christianity by the authorityof Christ or the Apostles who allegedly chose the first day of the week as the newChristian Sabbath to celebrate Christ's resurrection. Rather the change began about acentury after Christ's death during the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian (about A. D.135), as a result of an interplay of political, social, pagan and religious factors to bementioned shortly. Essentially, it was the necessity to avoid the repressive anti-Jewishand anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated in A. D. 135 by Emperor Hadrian that caused


the Bishop of Rome to pioneer the change from Sabbath to Sunday and from Passoverto Easter-Sunday. These changes were designed to show the Christian separation anddifferentiation from the Jews at a time when Jewish religious practiced were outlawed b ythe Roman government.

The implications of this conclusion is that the change from Saturday to Sunday wasnot merely a change of names or numbers, but a change of meaning, authority, andexperience. To help you see how I reached this conclusion, I will take you step by stepthrough the major parts of my research. We begin by examining first the alleged role ofChrist, of His resurrection and of the Jerusalem church in the change from Sabbath toSunday. Then we proceed to consider the pivotal influence of the Church of Rome andof Sun-worship in the adoption of Sunday.

JESUS AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY

A popular view defended recently by several scholars is that Christ paved theway for the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday keeping instead,by His messianic claims and His provocative method of Sabbath keeping, which causedconsiderable controversy with the religious leaders of His day, . A noteworthy example ofthis view is the symposium From Sabbath to the Lord's Day, produced by sevenBritish/American scholars and sponsored by the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Researchin Cambridge, England. The authors maintain that Christ transcended the Sabbath law b yHis messianic claims. He acted against the prevailing Sabbath traditions in order toprovide His followers with the freedom to reinterpret the Sabbath and to choose a newday of worship, better suited to express their new Christian faith.

The fundamental problem with this popular view is that it grossly misinterpret theintent of Christ’s controversial Sabbath activities and teachings which were clearlydesigned, not to nullify, but to clarify the divine intent of the Fourth Commandment. Christacted deliberately against prevailing misconceptions of the Sabbath, not to terminate itsobservance, but to restore the day to God's intended purpose. It should be noted thatwhenever accused of Sabbath breaking, Christ rejected and refuted such charge. Hedefended Himself and His disciples from the charge of Sabbath breaking by appealing tothe Scriptures: “Have you read . . .” (Matt 12:3-5).

The intent of Christ’s provocative Sabbath teachings and activities was not topave the way for the abandonment of the Sabbath and adoption for Sunday keeping,but rather to show the true meaning and function of the Sabbath, namely, a day “to dogood” (Matt 12:12), “to save life” (Mark 3:4), to loose people from physical and spiritualbonds (Luke 13:12,16), and to show “mercy” rather than religiosity (Matt 12:7). A carefulstudy of these Sabbath pronouncements of Jesus, clearly show Jesus had no intent toabrogate the Sabbath. Instead He wanted to clarify the divine intent of the Sabbath,namely a day to celebrate God's creative and redemptive love by offering a living, lovingservice to needy people.

THE RESURRECTION AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY

The common view among Sundaykeeping Christians is that the Sabbath waschanged to Sunday by the Apostolic Church in order to commemorate Christ’sresurrection. This is indeed the common explanation given for Sundaykeeping. The Popehimself appeals to the resurrection and appearance of Jesus on Sunday in his PastoralLetter Dies Domini in order to argue for the apostolic origin of Sunday. Numerous Catholicand Protestant scholars have written in defence of the same view.

For example, in his doctoral dissertation Storia della Domenica (History of Sunday),Corrado Mosna, a Jesuit student at the Pontifical Gregorian University, who worked underProf. Vincenzo Monachino, S. J., (the same professor who monitored my dissertation)concludes: “Therefore we can conclude with certainty that the event of the resurrectionhas determined the choice of Sunday as the new day of worship of the first Christiancommunity.” On a similar vein Cardinal Jean Daniélou wrote: “The Lord's Day is a purely


Christian institution; its origin is to be found solely on the fact of the Resurrection of Christon the days after the Sabbath.”

In spite of its popularity, the claim that Christ's Resurrection on the first day of theweek caused the change from Sabbath to Sunday worship, lacks both biblical andhistorical support. A careful study of all the references to the Resurrection reveals theincomparable importance of the event, but it does not provide any indication regarding aspecial day to commemorate it. The New Testament attributes no liturgical significance tothe day of Christ's Resurrection simply because the Resurrection was seen as anexistential reality experienced by living victoriously by the power of the Risen Savior,and not a liturgical practice associated with Sunday worship.

Let me briefly mention seven major reasons which discredit the alleged role ofChrist's Resurrection in the adoption of Sunday observance.

(1 ) No Command of Christ or of the Apostles. There is no commandment ofChrist or of the apostles regarding a weekly-Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday celebrationof Christ's resurrection. We have commands in the New Testament regarding baptism(Matt 28:19-20), the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:24-25; 1 Cor 11:23-26) and foot-washing(John 13:14-15), but we find no commands or even suggestions to commemorate Christ'sResurrection on a weekly Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday.

(2) Jesus Made no Attempt to Institute a Memorial of His Resurrection. IfJesus wanted the day of His resurrection to become a memorial day of rest and worship,He would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to establish such a memorial. Itis important to note that divine institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, Lord's Supper, alltrace their origin to a divine act that established them. But on the day of His resurrectionChrist performed no act to institute a memorial of His resurrection.

If Jesus wanted to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, most likely He wouldhave told the women and the disciples when He arose: “Come apart and celebrate MyResurrection!” Instead He told the women “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee” (Matt28:10) and to the disciples “Go . . . make disciples . . . baptizing them” (Matt 28:19).None of the utterances of the risen Savior reveal an intent to memorialize His Resurrectionby making Sunday the new day of rest and worship.

The reason is that our Savior wanted His followers to view His Resurrection as anexistential reality to be experienced daily by living victoriously by the power of HisResurrection, rather than a litugical/religious event to be celebrated on Sunday. Paulexpressed the hope to “know him and the power of his resurrection” (Phil 3:10), but henever mentions his desire to celebrate Christ's Resurrection on Sunday or Easter-Sunday.

(3) Sunday Is Never Called “Day of the Resurrection.” Sunday is nevercalled in the New Testament as “Day of the Resurrection.” It is consistently designated“First day of the week.” The references to Sunday as day of the resurrection first appearin the early part of the fourth century, specifically in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea.By that time Sunday had become associated with the resurrection and consequently wasreferred to as “Day of the Resurrection.” But this development occurred several centuriesafter the beginning of Christianity.

(4) The Sunday-Resurrection Presupposes W ork, not Rest and WorshipThe Sunday-Resurrection presupposes work, rather than rest and worship, because itdoes not mark the completion of Christ’s earthly ministry which ended on a Fridayafternoon when the Savior said: “It is finished” (John 19:30), and then rested in the tombaccording to the commandment. Instead, the Resurrection marks the beginning of Christ’snew intercessory ministry (Acts 1:8; 2:33), which, like the first day of creation,presupposes work rather than rest.


(5) The Lord's Supper was not Celebrated on Sunday in Honor of theResurrection. In his dissertation on Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest andWorship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, Willy Rordorf argues thatSunday became the Lord's Day because that was the day in which the Lord's Supperwas celebrated. This view, accepted by many, lacks biblical and historical support.Historically we know that Christians could not celebrate the Lord’s Supper on a regularbasis on Sunday evening, because such gatherings were prohibited by the Romanhetariae law—a law that outlawed all types of communal fellowship meals held in theevening. The Roman government was afraid that such evening gatherings could becomean occasion for political plotting.

To avoid the search of the Roman police, Christian changed regularly the time andplace of the Lord's Supper celebration. Eventually, they moved the service from theevening to the morning. This explains why Paul is very specific on the manner ofcelebrating the Lord's Supper, but he is indefinite on the question of the time of theassembly. Note that four times he repeats the same phrase: “When you come together"(1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34). The phrase implies indefinite time,most likely because there was no set day for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

If, as some scholars contend, the Lord's Supper was celebrated on Sundayevening, as part of the Lord's Day worship, Paul could hardly have failed to mention thesacredness of the time in which they gathered. This would have strengthened his plea fora more worshipful attitude during the partaking of the Lord's Supper. The failure of Paul tomention “Sunday” as the time of the gathering or to use the adjective "Lord's–kuriake" tocharacterize the day as "the Lord's Day," (as he did it with reference to the Lord'sSupper), shows that the apostle did not attach any religious significance to Sunday.

(6) The Lord’s Supper Commemorates Christ's Sacrifice, not HisResurrection. Many Christians today view their Lord's Supper as the core of Sundayworship in honor of Christ's resurrection. But in the Apostolic Church, the Lord's Supperwas not celebrated on Sunday, as we have just seen, and was not connected with theResurrection. Paul, for instance, who claims to transmit what “he received from the Lord”(1 Cor 11:23), explicitly states that the rite commemorated not Christ’s resurrection, butHis sacrifice and Second Coming (“You proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes” (1 Cor11:26).

Similarly, Passover, celebrated today by many Christians on Easter Sunday, wasobserved during apostolic times, not on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection, butaccording to the biblical date of Nisan 14, primarily as a memorial of Christ’s suffering anddeath. Contrary to what many people believe, Easter-Sunday was unknown in theApostolic Church. It was introduced and promoted by the Church of Rome in the secondcentury in order to show separation and differentiation from the Jewish Passover. Theresult was the well-known Passover controversy which eventually led Bishop Victor ofRome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (about A. D. 191) for refusing to adoptEaster-Sunday. These indications show that Christ's resurrection on the first day of theweek, did not influence the Apostolic Church to adopt the weekly Sunday and the annualEaster-Sunday to commemorate such an event.

(7) The Resurrection is not the Dominant Reason for Sundaykeeping inEarliest Documents. The earliest explicit references to Sundaykeeping are found in thewritings of Barnabas (about A. D. 135 ) and Justin Martyr (about A.D. 150). Both writersdo mention the Resurrection but only as the second of two reasons, important but notpredominant. Barnabas’ first theological motivation for Sunday keeping is eschatological,namely, that Sunday as “the eight day” represents “the beginning of another world.”The notion of Sunday as “the eighth day,” was later abandoned because it is senselessto speak of “the eighth day” in a seven days week. Justin’s first reason for theChristians’ assembly on Dies Solis—the Day of the Sun, is the inauguration of creation:“Sunday is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter,created the world.” These reasons were eventually abandoned in favor of theResurrection which became the primary reason for Sunday observance.


The seven reasons given above suffice to discredit the claim that Christ’sresurrection on the first day of the week caused the abandonment of the Sabbath and theadoption of Sunday. The truth is that initially the resurrection was celebrated existentiallyrather than liturgically, that is, by a victorious way of life rather than by a special day ofworship.

JERUSALEM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY

Closely related to the role of the alleged role of the Resurrection, is the popularview that the Jerusalem Church pioneered the abandonment of the Sabbath andadoption of Sunday. I devoted chapter 5 “Jerusalem and the Origin of Sunday” of mydissertation to a close analysis of this view. My investigation shows that this popularview rests on three major faulty assumptions.

Sunday Began in Jerusalem because Christ Arose there

First, it is assumed that Jerusalem must be the birthplace of Sundaykeeping,because that is the place were Jesus arose on the first day of the week. It is alleged thatimmediately after Christ's resurrection, the Apostles “no longer felt at home in the JewishSabbath service.” and consequently they proceeded to institute Sunday worship inorder to commemorate Christ's Resurrection by a distinctive Christian liturgy.

As we have already shown, this assumption lacks biblical and historical support,because in the Apostolic Church the Resurrection was seen as an existential realityexperienced by living victoriously by the power of the Risen Savior, and not a liturgicalpractice associated with Sunday worship. We noted earlier that nothing in the NewTestament prescribes or even suggests the commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection onSunday. The very name “Day of the Resurrection” does not appear in Christian literatureuntil early in the fourth century.

If the primitive Jerusalem Church had pioneered and promoted Sundaykeepingbecause they no longer felt at home with Jewish Sabbathkeeping, we would expect tofind in such a church an immediate break away from Jewish religious traditions andservices. But the opposite is the case. Both the book of Acts as well as several Judeo-Christian documents clearly reveal that the ethnic composition and the theologicalorientation of the Jerusalem Church were profoundly Jewish. Luke’s characterization ofthe Jerusalem Church as “zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20), is an accurate descriptionwhich hardly allows for the abandonment of a chief precept of the law, namely, theSabbath.

Paul Learned About Sunday Observance from Jewish Leaders

The second faulty assumption is that Paul learned about Sunday observance fromthe apostolic leaders of the Jerusalem church and taught it to his Gentile converts. Thereason given for this assumption is that Paul could hardly have pioneered theabandonment of the Sabbath and adoption of Sunday, without stirring up the oppositionof the Jewish brethren. The absence of any echo of controversy is taken to mean thatPaul accepted Sunday observance as taught him by the Jewish brethren, and promotedthis practice among the Gentile churches which he established.

In his book on The Lord's Day, Paul Jewett notes, for example, “If Paul hadintroduced Sunday worship among the Gentiles, it seems likely that Jewish oppositionwould have accused his temerity in setting aside the law of the Sabbath, as was thecase with reference to the rite of circumcision (Acts 21:21).” The absence of suchopposition is interpreted by Jewett as indicating that Paul accepted and promotedSunday observance as taught him by the Jewish brethren.

This assumption is correct in maintaining that Paul could not have pioneeredSunday observance without stirring up the opposition of the Jewish brethren, but it is


incorrect in assuming that the Jewish Brethren taught Paul Sunday observance. The truthis that Jewish Christians, as we shall now see, were deeply committed to theobservance of the law in general and of the Sabbath in particular. The absence of anycontroversy between Paul and the Jewish brethren rather indicates that the Sabbathnever became an issue in the Apostolic Church because it was faithfully observed by allChristians.

Only Apostolic Jerusalem Church Could Change the Sabbath to Sunday

The third faulty assumption is that only the Jerusalem Church, which was theMother Church of Christendom, commanded sufficient authority and respect to persuadeall the Christian churches scattered through the Roman empire to change their weekly dayof worship from Sabbath to Sunday. Less influential churches could have neveraccomplished this change.

The fundamental problem with this assumption is the failure to recognize theJewish composition and theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church. Of all theChristian churches, the Jerusalem church was the only church that was composed almostexclusively of Jewish Christians who were zealous in the observance of the law ingeneral and of the Sabbath in particular.

Attachment to the Law. The attachment of the Jerusalem Church to the MosaicLaw is reflected in the decisions of the first Jerusalem Council held about A.D. 49-50 (SeeActs 15). The exemption from circumcision is there granted only “to brethren who are ofthe Gentiles” (Acts 15:23). No concession is made for Jewish-Christians, who mustcontinue to circumcise their children.

Furthermore, the exemption of the Gentiles from circumcision, did not entail theirrelease from the observance of the law in general and of the Sabbath in particular. This isclearly indicated by the fact that the Gentiles were expected to observe the four Mosaiclaws regarding the “sojourner” who dwelt among the Israelites. These laws are found inLeviticus 17-18, and are cited in the decision of the Jerusalem Council: “You abstain fromwhat has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, and fromunchastity” (Acts 15:29). This concern of the Jerusalem Council for ritual defilement andJewish food laws reflects its continued attachment to the Mosaic laws.

This conclusion is supported by the reason given by James for requiring Gentilesto observe the four Mosaic laws regarding the “sojourner:” “For generations past Moseshas had spokesmen in every city; he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues” (Acts15:21). All interpreters recognize that both in his proposal and in its justification, Jamesreaffirms the binding nature of the Mosaic Law which was customarily taught everySabbath in the synagogue.

Paul’s Last Visit. Further insight is provided by Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem.The Apostle was informed by James and the elders that thousand of converted Jewswere “all zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20). The same leaders then pressured Paul toprove to the people that he also “lived in observance of the law” (Acts 21-24), b yundergoing a rite of purification at the Temple. In the light of this deep commitment to theobservance of the Law, it is hardly conceivable that the Jerusalem Church would haveabrogated one of its chief precepts–Sabbath keeping–and pioneered Sunday worshipinstead.

Did Sunday Originate in Palestine After 70 A.D.?

The foregoing evidences has led some scholars to argue that Sunday observancebegan in Palestine at a slightly later time, namely, after the Roman destruction of theTemple in A. D. 70. They presume that the flight of the Christians from Jerusalem toPella as well as the psychological impact of the destruction of the Temple weanedPalestinian Christians away from Jewish observances such as Sabbathkeeping.


This assumption is discredited by the testimonies of both Eusebius andEpiphanius who inform us that the Jerusalem Church after A. D. 70 and until Hadrian’ssiege of Jerusalem in A. D. 135 was composed of and administered by Jewish converts,whom they characterize as “zealous to insist on the literal observance of the Law.”

The continuity in the observance of the Sabbath among Palestinian Christians,known as Nazarenes, is evidenced by the testimony of a fourth century Palestinianhistorian, Epiphanius. He tells us that the Nazarenes, who were “the very directdescendants of the primitive community” of Jerusalem, insisted and persisted in theobservance of seventh-day Sabbath keeping until his own time, that is, about A. D. 350.I vividly remember the joy I felt when I found Epiphanius’ testimony. Eagerly I showedthis document to my Jesuit Prof. Vincenzo Monachino, who read it attentively and thenexclaimed: “This is the death-blow to the theory that makes Jerusalem the birthplace ofSundaykeeping.”

My professor immediately understood that if the direct descendants of theJerusalem Church persisted in the observance of the Sabbath until at least the fourthcentury, then the Jerusalem Church could hardly have pioneered the abandonment of theSabbath and adoption of Sunday during the Apostolic time. Of all the Christian Churches,the Jerusalem Church was both ethnically and theologically the closest and most loyal toJewish religious traditions, and thus the least likely to change the day of the Sabbath.

ROME AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY

Having proven to the satisfaction of my professor that the Jerusalem Church wasto be excluded as the birthplace of Sunday observance, I proceeded to look for the mostlikely church that could have pioneered such a change. In the course of my investigation Ifound cumulative evidences pointing to the Church of Rome. There I found the social,religious and political conditions which made it expedient for the Bishop of Rome topromote the abandonment of Sabbathkeeping and the adoption of Sunday worshipinstead.

(1) Predominance of Gentile Converts. In the first place, the Church of Romewas composed predominantly of Gentile converts. Paul in his Epistle to the RomanChurch explicitly affirms: “I am speaking to you Gentiles” (Romans 11:13). This meansthat while the Jerusalem Church was made up almost exclusively of Jewish Christianswho were deeply committed to their religious traditions, like Sabbathkeeping, the Churchof Rome consisted mostly of Gentile converts who were influenced by such paganpractices as Sun Worship with its Sun Day.

(2) Early D ifferentiation from the Jews. In the second place I found that thepredominant Gentile membership apparently contributed to an early Christiandifferentiation from the Jews in Rome. This is indicated by the fact that in A.D. 64, Neroblamed the Christians for the burning of Rome, though the Jewish district of Trasteverehad not been touched by the fire. This fact suggests that by A. D. 64 Christians in Romewere no longer perceived to be a Jewish sect by the Roman authorities, but a differentreligious movement. Most likely the reason is that by that time Christians in Rome nolonger participated in the worship service of the synagogue. This was not the case inPalestine where Christians attended the synagogue’s services until toward the end of thefirst century. This is indicated by the fact that in order to keep Christians away from thesynagogue services, rabbinical authorities introduced around A. D. 90, the malediction ofthe Christians to be recited during the worship service.

(3) Preeminence of the Church of Rome. A third important consideration is the“preeminent authority” (potentior principalitas) exercised by the Bishop of Rome after thedestruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. Being the Bishop of the capital city of the Romanempire, the Bishop of Rome took over the leadership of the Christian communities atlarge. His leadership is acknowledged, for example, by Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneaus, all ofwhom lived in the second century. Tangible proofs of the leadership of the Bishop ofRome are his interventions against sectarian movements like Marcionism and Montanism.


More important still for our investigation is the role of the Bishop of Rome inpioneering and promoting the change from Sabbath feasting to Sabbath fasting, as wellas the change from Passover to Easter Sunday. To this point we shall return shortly. Atthis juncture it suffices to note that the Bishop of Rome emerged to the leadership positionafter the A. D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. He was the only one who commandedsufficient authority to influence the majority of Christians to adopt new religiousobservances, such as weekly Sunday and annual Easter Sunday.

(4) Repressive Anti-Jewish Measures. To appreciate why the Bishop of Romewould pioneer the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday, it isimportant to consider a fourth important factor, namely, the fiscal, military, political andreligious repressive measures imposed by the Romans upon the Jews, beginning withthe First Jewish Revolt against Rome in A. D. 66 and culminating with the Second JewishRevolt in A. D. 135. These measures, which were introduced by the Roman governmentto punish the Jews on account of their violent uprisings in various places of the Empire,were especially felt in the city of Rome, which had a large Jewish population.

Fiscally, the Jews were subjected to a discriminatory tax (the fiscus judaicus) whichwas introduced by Vespasian and increased first by Domitian ( A.D. 81-96) and later b yHadrian. This meant that the Jews had to pay a penalty tax simply for being Jews.Militarily, Vespasian and Titus crushed the First Jewish Revolt (A. D. 66-70) and Hadrian,the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132-135). Religiously, Vespasian (69-79 A.D.)abolished the Sanhedrin and the office of the High Priest.

These repressive measures against the Jews were intensely felt in Rome, whichhad a large Jewish population. In fact, the mounting hostility of the Roman populaceagainst the Jews forced the Emperor Titus, though “unwilling” (invitus), to ask the JewessBerenice, sister of Herod the Younger, whom he wanted to marry, to leave Rome.

(5) Anti-Jewish Propaganda. A fifth significant factor is the anti-Jewishpropaganda by a host of Roman authors who began reviling the Jews racially andculturally, deriding especially Sabbathkeeping and circumcision as examples of Judaism’sdegrading superstitions. These authors especially derided Sabbathkeeping as anexample of Jewish laziness. Contemptuous anti-Jewish literary comments can be foundin the writings of Seneca (d. A.D. 65 ), Persius (A.D. 34-62), Petronius (ca. A.D. 66),Quintillian (ca. A.D. 35-100), Martial (ca. A.D. 40-104), Plutarch (ca. A.D. 46-119),Juvenal ( A. D. 125) and Tacitus (ca. A.D. 55-120), all of whom lived in Rome most of theirprofessional lives.

(6) Hadrian’s Legislation. The sixth and most decisive factor which influencedthe change of the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday, is the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation promulgated by the Emperor Hadrian in A. D. 135. Hadrian went asfar as outlawing the practice of Jewish religion in general and of Sabbathkeeping inparticular in A. D. 135.

This repressive anti-Jewish legislation was promulgated by Hadrian after threeyears of bloody fighting (A. D. 132-135) to crush the Jewish revolt. His Roman legionssuffered many casualties. When the Emperor finally captured Jerusalem, he decided todeal with the Jewish problem in a radical way. He slaughtered thousands of Jews, andtook thousand of them as slaves to Rome. He made Jerusalem into a Roman colony,calling it Aelia Capitolina. He forbade Jews and Jewish Christians from ever entering thecity. More important still for our investigation, Hadrian outlawed the practice of the Jewishreligion in general and of Sabbathkeeping in particular throughout the empire.

It is not surprising that the Jews view Hadrian and Hitler as the two most wantedmen of their history. The two men share the infamous distinction of wanting to eradicatethe Jewish religion and the Jewish people. Hadrian attempted to abolish Judaism as areligion and Hitler tried to liquidate the Jews as a people.


When I learned about the Hadrianic anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation, Iasked myself: How did the Christians, especially those living in Rome under theimmediate attention of the Emperor, react to such legislation? Did they choose to remainfaithful in their Sabbath observance, even if it means being punished as Jews, or didabandon Sabbathkeeping in order to clarify to the Roman authorities their separation anddifferentiation from the Jews? The answer is simple. Many Christians change the timeand manner of observance of two institutions associated with Judaism, namely theSabbath and Passover. Shortly we shall see that the Sabbath was changed to Sundayand Passover to Easter Sunday in order to avoid even the semblance of Judaism.

(7) Christian Theology of Contempt for the Jews. To understand whatcontributed to these historical changes, we need to mention a seventh important factor,namely, the development of a Christian theology of contempt for the Jews. This is whathappened. When the Jewish religion in general and the Sabbath in particular wereoutlawed by Roman government and derided by Roman writers, a whole body ofAdversus Judaeos (“Against all Jews”) Christian literature began to appear. Followingthe lead of Roman writers, Christians authors developed a “Christian” theology ofseparation from and contempt toward the Jews. Characteristic Jewish customs such ascircumcision and Sabbathkeeping were proclaimed to be signs of Jewish depravity.

The condemnation of Sabbathkeeping as a sign of Jewish wickedness, contributedto the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday observance, in order toclarify to the Roman authorities the Christian separation from Judaism and identificationwith Roman paganism. This historical change from Sabbath to Sunday observance waspioneered by the Church of Rome–a predominantly Gentile Church which, as notedearlier, that took over the leadership of Christian communities after the A. D. 70destruction of Jerusalem. To appreciate how the Church of Rome went about to weanChristians away from Sabbathkeeping and to encourage Sunday worship instead, weshall mention briefly the theological, social and liturgical measures taken by the Church ofRome.

Measures Taken by the Church of Rome

Theologically, the Sabbath was reduced from a creational institution establishedby God for mankind, to a Mosaic institution given exclusively to the Jews as a trademarkof their depravity. Justin Martyr, for instance, a leader of the Church of Rome who wroteabout the middle of the second century, argues in his Dialogue with Trypho, that theobservance of the Sabbath was a temporary Mosaic ordinance which God imposedexclusively on the Jews as “a mark to single them out for punishment they so welldeserve for their infidelities.”

It is hard to comprehend how church leaders like Justin, who became a martyr forthe Christian faith, could reject the biblicalmeaning of the Sabbath as a sign of covenant commitment to God (Ex 31:16,17; Ez20:12,20), and reduce it instead to a sign of Jewish depravity. What is even harder toaccept is the absence of any scholarly condemnation for such absurd and embarrassingtheology of contempt for the Jews—a theology which blatantly misinterpreted biblicalinstitutions like the Sabbath, in order to give biblical sanction to the political and socialrepression of the Jews.

The sad lesson of history is that the desire to be politically correct by supportingpopular immoral policies such as the extermination of Jews, Moslems and heretics, or theperpetration of slavery, has caused some church leaders and Bible scholars to becomebiblically incorrect. They fabricated unbiblical theologies which would sanction popularimmoral practices. It is impossible to estimate the damage done by these theologies ofexpediency to our society and Christianity at large.

For example, the failure of church leaders and scholars to apologize for the theologyof contempt toward the Jews, has contributed, among other things, to the origin of thepopular dispensational theology. This theology, embraced by many evangelical


churches today, teaches among other things that God will rapture the church awaysecretly and suddenly, before pouring out His wrath on the Jews during the final sevenyears of Tribulation. The popularity of the book and movie Left Behind, which is takingAmerican by storm, is a tangible proof of how pervasive this deceptive teaching is today.

Socially, the negative reinterpretation of the Sabbath as a sign of Jewishwickedness led the Church of Rome to transform Sabbath observance from a day offeasting and joy into a day of fasting and sadness. The purpose of the Sabbath fastwas not to enhance the spiritual observance of the Sabbath. Rather, as emphaticallystated in the papal decretal of Pope Sylvester (A. D. 314-335), the Sabbath fasting wasdesigned to show “contempt for the Jews” (exsecratione Judaeorum) and for theirSabbath “feasting” (destructione ciborum). The sadness and hunger resulting from thefast would enable Christians to avoid “appearing to observe the Sabbath with the Jews”and would encourage them to enter more eagerly and joyfully into the observance ofSunday.

The weekly Saturday fast developed as an extension or counterpart of the annualHoly-Saturday fast of Easter season. This was the day when all Christians who adoptedthe Roman Easter Sunday, fasted. The annual Holy-Saturday Easter fast, like theweekly Saturday fast, was designed to express not only sorrow for Christ’s death butalso contempt for the Jews who were considered as the perpetrators of His death. Forexample, a third century document known as The Didascalia Apostolorum (TheTeachings of the Apostles – ca. 250 A.D.) enjoins Christians to fast on Easter-Friday andSaturday “on account of the disobedience of our brethren [i.e., the Jews] . . . becausethereon the people killed themselves in crucifying our Savior.”

Most scholars agree that the Church of Rome was responsible for repudiating thebiblical dating of the Passover (Nisan 14), and promoting instead Easter Sunday. Thechange from Passover to Easter Sunday was introduced by the Church of Rome in thelatter part of the second century in order to avoid, as Prof. Lightfoot puts it, “even thesemblance of Judaism.” The anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the biblicaldating of Passover is clearly expressed by Constantine in his letter to the Christianbishops at the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). In this conciliar letter the Emperor urges allChristians to follow the example of the Church of Rome in adopting Easter Sunday,because, he wrote: “We ought not therefore to have anything in common with the Jews,for the Savior has shown us another way . . . In unanimously adopting this mode [i.e.Easter Sunday] we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestablecompany of the Jews.” This letter of the Council of Nicaea represents the culmination ofa controversy initiated two centuries earlier which centered in Rome.

The same anti-Judaic motivations which caused the change from Passover toEaster Sunday accounts also for the contemporaneous substitution of Sabbath keepingwith Sunday worship. This conclusion is supported not only by the fact that the JewishSabbath shared the same anti-Judaic condemnation as the Jewish Passover, but alsoby the close nexus between the observance of the annual Easter Saturday fast, whichwas followed by the Easter Sunday rejoicing, and the observance of its weeklycounterpart, the Saturday fast which was followed by Sunday rejoicing. The basic unitybetween these annual and weekly observances is explicitly affirmed by the Fathers, andfurther suggests a common origin in the Church of Rome at the same time and owing tosimilar causes.

It should be noted that the Pope's attempt to kill the festive gleam of the Sabbathby making the day a time of rigorous fasting, was not favorably received by all thechurches. The Eastern Churches, for example, resisted the adoption of Sabbath fastingas well as Easter Sunday. In fact, their resistance to these practices eventuallycontributed to the historical break in A. D. 1054 between the Roman Catholic Church andthe Greek Orthodox Church.

Liturgically, the Church of Rome decreed that no religious assemblies andeucharistic celebrations were to be held on Saturday. For example, Pope Innocent I ( A.


D. 402-417) declared that “as the tradition of the Church maintains, in these two days[Friday and Saturday] one should not absolutely celebrate the sacraments.” Twocontemporary church historians, Socrates and Sozomen, confirm Innocent I's decretal. Forexample, Sozomen (about A. D. 440) tells us that while “the people of Constantinople,and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day ofthe week, such custom is never observed at Rome and Alexandria.”

Summing up, the historical evidences alluded above indicate that the Church ofRome used theological, social, and liturgical measures to empty the Sabbath of anyreligious significance, and to promote Sunday observance instead.

SUN WORSHIP AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY

The foregoing discussion has focused on the interplay of social, political, andreligious which have contributed to the abandonment of the Sabbath. The question thatstill remains unanswered is: Why was Sunday chosen to show separation anddifferentiation from the Jews? Why Christians did not adopt another day such as Friday,to commemorate Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our redemption?

Sun Worship and Sunday. The answer to these questions is to be foundespecially in the influence of Sun worship with its Sun-day which became “dominant inRome and in other parts of the Empire from the early part of the second century A.D.” The Invincible Sun-god became the chief god of the Roman Pantheon and wasworshipped especially on the Dies Solis, that is, “the Day of the Sun,” known in ourcalendar as “Sunday.”

To understand how the Day of the Sun became the first and most important day ofthe Roman week, it is important to note that the Romans adopted the seven day weekfrom the Jews just before the beginning of Christianity. However, rather than numberingthe days like the Jews, the Romans chose to name the days of the week after the sevenplanets, which they worshipped as gods.

What is surprising, however, is that initially the Romans made Dies Saturni (theday of Saturday) the first day of the week, followed by Dies Solis (Day of the Sun),which was the second day. The reason is that during the first century the Saturn god wasviewed as being more important than the Sun god. Consequently the Day of Saturn wasmade the first and most important day of the week. The situation changed by thebeginning of the second century, when the Sun-god became the most important Romangod. The popularity of the Sun-god caused the advancement of the Day of the Sun(Sunday) from the position of second day of the week to that of first and most importantday of the week. This required each of the other days to be advanced one day, andSaturn’s day thereby became the seventh day of the week for the Romans, as it hadbeen for the Jews and Christians.

When I learned about the advancement of the Day of the Sun from second day ofthe week in the first century, to first day of the week in the second century, I asked myselfthe question: It is possible that this development influenced Christians with a paganbackground to adopt and adapt the Sun’s day for their Christian worship in order to showseparation from the Jews and identification with the Romans at the time whenSabbathkeeping was prohibited by roman Law?

Indirect Evidences. During the course of my investigation I found abundantindirect and direct evidences supporting this hypothesis. I found that people who hadworshipped the Sun-god in their pagan days, brought with them into the church variouspagan practices. The existence of the problem is evidenced by the frequent rebukes b yChurch leaders to those Christians who venerated the Sun-god, especially on the Day ofthe Sun.

The influence of Sun-worship can be seen in early Christian art and literature,where the symbology of the Sun-god is often used to represent Christ. In fact, the


earliest pictorial representation of Christ (dated about A. D. 240), which was discoveredunder the confession of St. Peter's Basilica excavated during a 1953-57, is a mosaic thatportrays Christ as the Sun God riding the quadriga sun-chariot. Sunrise also became theorientation for prayer and for Christian churches. The dies natalis solis Invicti, the birthdayof the Invincible Sun, which the Romans celebrated on December 25, was adopted b ythe Christians to celebrate Christ's birth.

Direct Evidence. A more direct of the influence of Sun-worship in the Christianadoption of Sunday, is provided by the use of the symbology of the sun to justify theactual observance of Sunday. The motifs of light and of the sun are frequently invokedby the Church Fathers to develop a theological justification for Sunday worship. Forexample, Jerome explains: “If it is called the day of the sun by the pagans, we mostwillingly acknowledge it as such, since it is on this day that the light of the world appearedand on this day the Sun of Justice has risen.”

Conclusion. The conclusion of my investigation conducted over a period of fiveyears in Pontifical libraries and archives in Rome, Italy, is that the change from Sabbath toSunday came about, not by the authority of Christ or the Apostles, but as a result of aninterplay of social, political, pagan, and religious factors. I found that anti-Judaism ledmany Christians to abandon the observance of the Sabbath to differentiate themselvesfrom the Jews at a time when Judaism in general and Sabbathkeeping in particular wereoutlawed in the Roman empire. Sun-worship influenced the adoption of Sundayobservance to facilitate the Christian identification and integration with the customs andcycles of the Roman empire.

Simply stated, the Sabbath was changed to Sunday because of expediency, thatis, the need to avoid the anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath Roman legislation. We may ask: Isexpediency a legitimate motive to change a divine commandment? Did Jesus ever say:“If it becomes difficult to observe one of my commandments, do not suffer for it! Justchange it!” Obviously the answer it “No!” No such teaching can be found in the Bible.Yet, time and again in the history of Christianity, some church leaders and religiousorganizations have chosen expediency and compromise, rather than commitment tobiblical teachings.

The change from Sabbath to Sunday was not simply one of names or numbers,but of authority, meaning and experience. It was a change from a HOLY DAY divinelyestablished to enable us to experience more freely and more fully the awareness of divinepresence and peace in our lives, into a HOLIDAY to seek for personal pleasure andprofit. This historical change has greatly affected the quality of Christian life of countlessChristians who throughout the centuries have been deprived of the physical, mental, andspiritual renewal the Sabbath is designed to provide. The change has also contributed tothe enormous decline in church attendance which is threatening the survival of mainlinechurches is numerous Western countries.

The recovery of the Sabbath is especially needed today when our souls,fragmented, penetrated and desiccated by a cacophonous, tension-filled culture, cry outfor the release and realignment that awaits us on the Sabbath Day.

Rediscovering the Sabbath in this cosmic age provides the basis for a cosmic faith,a faith which embraces and unites creation, redemption, and final restoration; the past, thepresent, and the future; man, nature, and God; this world and the world to come. It is afaith that recognizes God’s dominion over the whole creation and human life b yconsecrating to Him the seventh day; a faith that fulfills the believer’s true destiny in timeand eternity; a faith that allows the Savior to enrich our lives with a larger measure of Hispresence, peace, and rest.


Special Offer On The Four Sabbath BooksAnd The Newly Recorded Sabbath Seminar

The complete set of my four volumes on the Sabbath and the newlyrecorded SABBATH ENRICHMENT SEMINAR are offered to the subscribers ofthe ENDTIMES ISSUES newsletter at the following special prices:

FOUR SABBATH BOOKS : From Sabbath to Sunday, D ivine Rest forHuman R estlessness , The Sabbath in the New Testament, and The SabbathUnder Crossfire for only $50.00, postage paid, instead of the regular price of$80.00.

NEWLY RECORDED SABBATH SEMINAR IN THREE VIDEOCASSETTES containing six one-hour pr esentations for only $60.00, postpaid,instead of the regular price of $120.00.

NEWLY RECORDED SABBATH SEMINAR IN SIX AUDIO CASSETTEScontaining six one-hour pr esentations for only $20.00, postage paid, instead ofthe regular price of $30.00.

THE COMPLETE PACKAGE OF FOUR SABBATH BOO KS, THREEVIDEOS CASSETTES, AND SIX AUDIO TAPES for only $100, postage paid,instead of the regular price of $230.00.

You can place your order by phone, or regular mail, or email.

By phone, simply call us at (616) 471-2915 and give us your credit cardinformation.

By regular mail, send your check to: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES, 4990Appian Way, Berrien Springs, MI 49103.


By email, fill out the form below and email it back to:<[email protected]>

CREDIT CARD INFORMATION TO ORDER SABBATH MATERIAL

Credit Card type: _________ (only Visa, Master Card or American Expressaccepted)

Credit Card number _______________________________

Expiration date _____________________________

Customer name on the Card ____________________________________

Street address _____________________________________

City __________________________________________

Sate ______________ Zip ________________________

Phone number __________________________________

Email address ___________________________________

Total amount __________________________________________

List the books, Video or Audio Cassettes ordered___________________________________________

Our promise: We guarantee to process your order on the same day we receiveit.

Contact Information

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.Retired Professor of Theology and Church HistoryAndrews University4990 Appian Way, Berrien Springs, MI 49103

Phone (616) 471-2915 Fax (616) 471-4013E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] site: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com

Download - From Sabbath To Sunday: How Did It Come About?

Top Related